Determinist Ethics
Introduction
While the first-person perspective compels us to act as if free, a consistent deterministic ethics demands treating others as causally determined entities—akin to automatons, animals, or "lunatics". Following this asymmetrical approach, far from being dehumanizing, can lead to a more rational, empathetic, and ultimately more compassionate ethical framework, shifting our focus from metaphysical blame to pragmatic understanding and effective intervention.
Understanding Determinism and its Philosophical Implications
At its core,
causal determinism asserts that every state of the universe is entirely determined by its preceding states and the laws of physics. Applied to human beings, this means that our thoughts, desires, decisions, and actions are not spontaneous acts of uncaused will, but rather the inevitable outcomes of a complex interplay of genetic predispositions, environmental influences, past experiences, and neurological processes. From this perspective, the idea that one "could have done otherwise" given the exact same conditions becomes an illusion.
This deterministic worldview presents a profound challenge to traditional notions of
choice and agency. If every action is pre-determined, then the concept of ultimate moral responsibility, where an individual is solely and fundamentally accountable for their choices, begins to unravel. If a person's actions are merely the product of forces beyond their ultimate control, then the moral justification for blame, punishment, and even praise, in their traditional sense, loses its footing.
The Asymmetry: Self as Free, Others as Unfree
The central tenet of this ethical framework lies in a crucial asymmetry: the distinction between our first-person experience of ourselves and our third-person understanding of others.
The Irrepressible Subjective Experience of Freedom (First-Person Perspective):
In our typical ego-driven conscious states, we simply
cannot escape the lived experience of making choices. While mental states such as flow, ego-death or “enlightenment” might offer a welcome respite from one’s existence as an ego with its seemingly inescapable sense of agency, this essay will focus on the implications of determinism for that egoic experience. Regardless of whether free will objectively exists, our egos operate
as if it does. To deny this subjective experience would render daily life incoherent and paralyzing.
The Objective Treatment of Others (Third-Person Perspective):
In contrast, from an objective and scientific perspective, the actions of others can and
should be viewed as causally determined outcomes, shifting our interpretive lens from moral judgment to causal analysis. The empathy and understanding we feel towards animals and 'lunatics' without ascribing free will to them can also be extended towards all human behavior. While determinism might render our
freedom illusory, the same cannot be said for our
feelings of joy and suffering. This is to clarify that acknowledging causal determination does not render others worthless; rather, it fosters profound empathy for all suffering, none of which can ever be considered "deserved". I stipulate that treating others as causally determined both leads to more ethical behavior and is ultimately beneficial to the determinist because it enables them to influence their environment more effectively.
Practical Benefits of this Asymmetrical Approach:
- More Effective Social Policy: This perspective encourages a focus on identifying and modifying causal factors to address undesirable behaviors. Instead of simply condemning bad behavior or blindly punishing it because the perpetrators "deserve" it, policies would prioritize results above all else. In most cases this means foregrounding interventions such as improved education, mental health support and poverty reduction over punitive measures.
- Enhanced Empathy and Reduced Resentment: If we truly internalize that others' actions are determined, then anger, blame, and resentment lose their ground. Instead of condemning, we are prompted to understand the causal factors at play, fostering greater peace of mind and compassion which in turn leads to a stronger sense of community.
Moralizing as a Tool of Influence (with Caution):
Within a deterministic framework, the act of moralizing—i.e., condemnation—can still serve a function, albeit a pragmatic, "insincere" means of influencing behavior. I.e., one could try to influence someone's bahavior by communicating that one morally condemns that person's "choice" to engage in that behavior without truly believing that. Moralizing in this sense becomes one among many tools one can use to shape others’ future actions. However, this practice should be applied sparingly and with extreme caution for three reasons:
- Empathy for the Moralized: Despite the absence of true metaphysical responsibility, the experience of being blamed or shamed causes real psychological pain and suffering. A compassionate deterministic ethics demands that we minimize such pain. Essentially, moralizing becomes just another punitive measure which must be weighed against both its supposed beneficial outcomes and against alternate approaches.
- Ineffectiveness: Most often, moralizing proves to be an ineffective or at least sub-optimal approach to influencing behavior. For instance, combating drug abuse is demonstrably more effective through supportive structural interventions (e.g., public health initiatives, economic opportunities, accessible treatment) than through moral condemnation (or even amoral repressive measures). Focusing solely on individual blame often fails to address the complex factors contributing to the behavior and can even reinforce it.
- The Danger of Eliminationism: Over-reliance on moralizing risks inadvertently reproducing notions of free will and ultimate responsibility. Instead of seeking to fix the underlying conditions that produce certain actions and actors, society may fall into the trap of simply looking for ultimately responsible individuals or groups to blame and to remove. This tendency to blame and remove lies at the core of some of the most destructive ideologies such as modern antisemitism (also termed 'the socialism of fools' due to its misdirection of structural economic grievances onto a scapegoat group). A truly deterministic approach necessitates a focus on understanding and modifying the system, not just removing the "immoral" people it produces.
Addressing the straw man of moral nihilism
A common misreading posits that if all actions are determined, then no one can be held accountable, leading to moral nihilism, societal chaos, and the exculpation of all harmful behavior. However, this interpretation fails to take into account the ego’s willingness and justification to intervene in its environment, regardless of whether that environment is ascribed free will or not. Firstly, as stated above, a determinist ethics grounded in empathy demands that one first consider supportive and rehabilitative measures to change others' behavior. Secondly, determinist ethics still allows for punitive and repressive measures when those other measures are insufficient.
If a group of kindergartners were about to get mauled by bear you might justifiably consider resorting violence, even deadly force, to stop the bear. The same is no less true when the kindergarteners are refugees and the bear is a right-wing extremist. When seeking to minimize suffering, an entity need not "deserve" repression in order to justifiably suffer it. It is in this vein that a determinist ethics allows for repressive measures on an individual and societal scale. While a determinist might not think that reckless drivers "deserve" to have their licenses revoked in a retributive sense, one would have to be an idiot to want to abolish that policy. The possibility of you "undeservedly" losing your license is worth the benefit that policy provides to you.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed asymmetrical view—treating oneself as free while treating others as determined—offers a consistent and potentially more beneficial framework for ethical thought and social interaction within a deterministic worldview. By acknowledging the irrepressible subjective experience of agency for the self, while adopting an objective, causal lens for others, we can move beyond the problematic consequences of traditional notions of free will. This perspective synthesizes the reality of our lived experience with the logical implications of determinism. While challenging deeply ingrained intuitions, this framework ultimately suggests a path towards a more rational, empathetic, and effective approach to understanding and managing human behavior and societal challenges, fostering a society built on understanding rather than condemnation.
